Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rentec Direct

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rentec Direct

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rentec Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, specifically WP:NCORP. Sources are press releases, either from company or non-notable awards. The recently added USA Today is a one sentence passing mention. Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, so here are my points after an additional research. I believe the original article was well purposed and cited, but there are some references which can make it better and more notable and warrant keeping the wikipedia article.
  • The main relevant question for a deletion request is: does it meet WP:ORG? I believe it does because it meets the stated criteria: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
  • There are two articles from print news media by The Daily Courier that I've recommended in the talk page. These articles meet all the requirements of WP:ORG in that they are a) significant coverage, b) independent coverage, c) a reliable source, and d) are a secondary source. The articles are behind a paywall and are physical print media; however, they should count because they are WP:PUBLISHED.
  • Additionally there are significant, independent, reliable and secondary articles about this organization from Multi-Housing News as well as SOREDI, Southern Oregon Business Journal, and themiddlemarket.com.
  • The Stevie Awards potentially add additional notability. Per Wikipedia:Awards and accolades, the Stevie Awards are notable and some precedent has been set as hundreds of organizations on Wikipedia have included them.
  • The 5 years of INC 5000 awards were removed, which is understandable as the INC 5000 awards do not have their own Awards page, although they are prominently mentioned here Inc._(magazine)#Inc._500_and_Inc._5000. While one INC5000 award may not be considered notable, it is extraordinarily rare for a company to achieve the list for 6 or more years. I believe this happens to less than 1% of 1% (.01%) of organizations which is extremely notablee; however, I think a citation for that would be useful which I've yet to find. There has also been some precedent set in that hundreds of organizations have INC5000 awards within their wikipedia page. While not fitting into a specific policy or rule, editors could subjectively agree that it is notable for a company to be included on the list so many years in a row and include it within the article and potentially include it within the notability criteria as well. Bar to Bar (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:N. Regarding the Stevie Awards it looks like a "pay to play" awards ceremony where a fee is paid to enter and "30-40% of entrants receive an award" thus fails WP:SIRS. Whilst the awards may be notable (not for debate here) - winners are not automatically notable. MetricMaster (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
  • Concern oh, so this last guy is blocked, I believe he/she didn't even have a look at references, and I don't understand that pay-to-play concern, why would someone do that every year, so this means all these awards are fake? I'm sure they are not. And not sure why other awards are removed from the page again, they are legit and have multiple sources. I will re-cite. Thanks Bar to Bar (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is disputing the existence of the awards, I'm sure they have been legitimately awarded, etc. But the awards are not "significant" in terms of helping to establish notability because (as I mention below) hundreds are given out every year plus the fact that companies essentially pay to enter for an award and have a 30%/40% chance of winning once they pay/enter. HighKing++ 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Analysis of sources as follows:
None of the sources and none of the awards meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of the Stevie Award, rest is press release and passing mentions. I'm not showing GNG or NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to possible COI I won't kick in a vote, but will notate some info which might be helpful for other editors:
  • The Daily Courier article, does include in-depth independent reporting on Rentec Direct. The full article is 616 words and the entire article discusses Rentec Direct. It is independently written by Jason McMillen of the Daily Courier and also had an editorial review. The article appeared as the featured front page article on the Sunday, January 6, 2019 edition of the printed paper. The article also references Rentec Direct's Entrepreneur 360 Award, which was previously included in the Awards section of the article (removed by an editor due to lack of citation). Both paywalled and printed newspapers meet WP:Published. See also WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."
  • The Daily Courier should meet WP:AUD as it is a regional newspaper. Per Grants Pass Daily Courier "The Daily Courier is the oldest continuously published newspaper in Southern Oregon." The paper routinely covers stories and has circulation across multiple counties and multiple cities in Southern Oregon which should define it as a regional newspaper.
  • The SOREDI article is not a press release or based upon a press release. Their website appears to mistakenly include it in a press release category, maybe because they thought it was newsworthy. The article was independently written about this org by SOREDI. One can verify this by searching any snippet of the article to see that it does not turn up elsewhere: search or search.
Thanks! Locu (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I'm unable to see the Grants Pass Daily Courier article so I cannot comment on that content - if somehow it was possible to read the article, we could arrive at a better informed conclusion. I take your point about Grants Pass Daily Courier, I based my earlier comment on the description of the newspaper as a small family-owned regional newspaper with a circulation of under 13,000 but it is also described as a paper of record for Josephine County (population 88K) so although a small newspaper, it might squeak into the definition of "regional". What do others think?
I disagree with your conclusion on the SOREDI article though. It is at the very least an article prepared with the cooperation of the company using information provided by the company and preempted the Prosper Awards. You can check here and you will see that the awardees (including the topic company) were profiled in advance of the awards announcement. It isn't "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 11:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we have consensus there is one reliable, independent source with some level of in-depth coverage. This is not enough to satisfy GNG. Relisting for further consensus on the rest of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rentec_Direct&oldid=1149728589"